Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #9: Bloodstains on the Shroud are type AB, contain DNA and are anatomically perfect

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ...But that "bearded face" on that particular cloth did not belong to Jesus of Nazareth. ... Continued from part #8.

[Above: Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 negative (of a negative therefore positive) photograph of the forehead of the man on the Shroud of Turin, showing the epsilon or reversed "3" (i.e. on the Shroud itself) bloodstain: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, 2000, p.28]

Further confirmation that these bloodstains on the Shroud are indeed blood is that "independently of Drs Heller and Adler" a "pathologist Dr Pier Luigi Baima-Bollone" has "not only confirmed it to be blood, but confidently identified it as the AB group" which "is comparatively rare among Europeans ... its incidence is 18 per cent among Jewish populations of the present-day Near East":

"In fact, quite independently of Drs Heller and Adler, other findings have served to confirm that what appears to be blood genuinely is blood. For instance the Italian pathologist Dr Pier Luigi Baima-Bollone, who has carried out thousands of autopsies, and who has had more Shroud `blood' sample than was accorded to Dr Adler, has not only confirmed it to be blood, but confidently identified it as of the AB group. [Baima-Bollone, P., Jorio, M. & Massaro, A.L., "Identification of the Group of the Traces of Human Blood on the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 6, March 1983, pp.3-6] Although this group is comparatively rare among Europeans and is found in only 3.2 per cent of the world's population as a whole, its incidence is 18 per cent among Jewish populations of the present-day Near East. [Garza-Valdes, L., "The DNA of God?," Doubleday: New York, 1999, p.39] Caution is needed, however, since some researchers have noted a tendency among blood samples more than several centuries old always to test AB." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.77).

However, while this is evidence that the image on the Shroud is that of a Jew, and therefore consistent with being Jesus, as Wilson & Schwortz indicate above, there may be "a tendency among blood samples more than several centuries old always to test AB." If this is in fact the case, then still the value of this evidence remains that it is any blood group at all, because that is more evidence that the bloodstains on the Shroud are really blood and not paint or other pigment as `skeptics' like McCrone and Nickell have claimed (see part #8) .

Not only do the bloodstains on the Shroud have a blood group, but they also have " X and Y chromosomes, indicating that the individual from whom it came was male" and also making it "quite impossible if the Shroud `blood' were merely iron oxide as contended by Walter McCrone":

"But arguably of the greatest importance, even though they are as yet far from fully secure, are studies, both in Italy and the United States, which, completely independently of each other, have identified DNA in the Shroud `blood'. On the afternoon of 21 April 1988, just a few hours after having cut off the snippets of the Shroud used for radiocarbon dating, the Italian microscopist Dr Giovanni Riggi took a 1.5 mm `blood' sample from the back-of-the-head region. In June 1993 he provided some of this sample to a visiting American microbiology professor, Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes, who took it back for analysis at the University of Texas' Center for Advanced DNA Technologies at San Antonio, Texas. There the laboratory director, Dr Victor Tryon, and his technician wife, Nancy Mitchell Tryon, quickly established that the sample was human blood of the AB group, just as Baima-Bollone had before them. They also determined that it had both X and Y chromosomes, indicating that the individual from whom it came was male. Three unmistakable gene segments were identified, beta globin from chromosome 11, amelogenin X from chromosome X and amelogenin Y from chromosome Y, a finding quite impossible if the Shroud `blood' were merely iron oxide as contended by Walter McCrone." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.77-78).

Contamination can virtually be ruled out in this case because, "the Center's work often has to be presented in courts of law, they have the most stringent controls to guard against it":

"Such is the importance and interest value of this claim that I decided to check its credibility independently with American-born specialist in ancient DNA, Dr Thomas Loy, who happens to be conveniently near to me at Queensland University's Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology .... He confirmed to me that he finds absolutely no cause to doubt the Tryons' findings. Thus, as I learned, the DNA in blood and tissue from archaeological finds even several thousands of years old is now quite routinely being analysed and evaluated. ... Unlike in the case of McCrone-type microscopic analysis, in which so much depends upon the microscopist's eye, DNA analysis is instrument based and a far more exact science. The amelogenin X and Y genes, as found by the Tryons, are absent from bacteria and fungi, and genuinely suggestive of a human source. .... As Loy stressed, the one major factor that everyone has to be on guard for when dealing with DNA, both ancient and modern, is that of contamination. However, when I put this point directly to Nancy Tryon she assured me that because the Center's work often has to be presented in courts of law, they have the most stringent controls to guard against it. Only if someone secondary to the original individual whose blood appears on the Shroud had happened to bleed again onto the very same spot could serious contamination have been introduced - and (nuns pricking their fingers while carrying out repairs excepted), that scenario has to be considered reasonably unlikely." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.91-92).

Also (not mentioned by Wilson), if there was other DNA in the Shroud's bloodstained areas, then there should be more than one individual's DNA, it would not be so degraded being more recent, and it would be less likely to be male, since those who would be most likely to bleed on the Shroud would have been nuns, although they would have worn gloves and moreover repairs were not in the bloodstained areas.

Even further evidence for the Shroud's bloodstains are really blood and not "cunningly painted" is that an "archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski" claimed that in the "back area of the Shroud `blood' stains, found ... a microscopic muscle fragment that had ... been dislodged by one of the scourge strokes":

"Ancillary to the blood itself, during the 1980s the Utah-based archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski, studying sticky tape number 3DB, taken from the small-of-the-back area of the Shroud `blood' stains, found what she has confidently identified as a microscopic muscle fragment that had arguably been dislodged by one of the scourge strokes. Also, as earlier mentioned, among the same blood from the back of the head have been found tubules of wood. Arguably these were transferred from the wood of the cross as the man of the Shroud desperately pressed his head against it in an attempt to relieve at least something of the horrifying pains in his hands and feet." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.77).

although I have been unable to confirm this from any other source.

The final nail in the coffin of all forgery theories (although it was one of the earlier arguments against them) is the physiological and anatomical perfection of the bloodflows (as well as all the wounds). As the late physician Dr. David Willis noted, "The most striking of these flows is one in the shape of a reversed three" (see above), which is "entirely faithful to scientific and physiological detail" such that, as biology professor and artist Paul Vignon pointed out in 1902, "No painter, in his most elaborate work, has ever risen to such exactitude" (my emphasis):

"The first clear traces of spilled blood are again from a group of wounds that we have no trouble in identifying. In David Willis's precise medical terminology: `... Turning to the front, there are similar puncture wounds with their counter-drawings of bloodflows but not so numerous as on the back. There are four or five that start from the top of the forehead moving down towards the eyes and the remainder are tangled in the masses of hair framing the face. The most striking of these flows is one in the shape of a reversed three and repays detailed study, so true to life is it. It starts just below the hairline to the left of the midline from a single wound; the flow then moves down to the medial part of the arch above the left eye following a meandering course obliquely and outwards. As the stream descends it broadens and alters course twice, finally building up and spreading out horizontally to the mesial line. Immediately below but separate is a `tear' of blood close to the eyebrow, which is presumably part of the same flow, or possibly from an independent wound. The reason for the meandering course of this vivid mark indicates that it met some obstruction in its downward course, and most likely this was due to the reflex contraction of the muscles of the brow from the pain of the wounds, furrowing the surface.' [Willis, D., unpublished notes, c.1976] As Dr. Willis found, it is quite impossible to talk sensibly about wounds such as these except in the context of a crown, or as it seems most likely to have been, a cap of thorns as described in the mockery of Christ as King of the Jews. Equally, as one reads such a description from a qualified physician, one cannot fail to be caught up by his own conviction of the sheer physiological logic of these wounds. Willis was not alone in this regard. Vignon too was fascinated by the thorn wounds, particularly the one shaped like a numeral three, which he too found entirely faithful to scientific and physiological detail. As he remarked, `No painter, in his most elaborate work, has ever risen to such exactitude.' [Vignon, P., "The Shroud of Christ," London, 1902, p.30]." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.23-24. Emphasis original)

Indeed, "venous blood flows can even be distinguished from arterial blood flows in some of the bloodstains on the man's forehead" and yet "the difference between arterial and venous blood was not even discovered until" 1616 (my emphasis):

"Not only are all the above tests consistent with the presence of blood, but venous blood flows can even be distinguished from arterial blood flows in some of the bloodstains on the man's forehead. In general, venous blood appears denser and darker red, and it flows more slowly than arterial blood. In large wounds or wounds that puncture a vessel and produce a large blood flow, venous blood slowly thickens as it descends because it takes a few minutes for the coagulation process to begin and a clot to form. The large epsilon-shaped clot in the middle of the man's forehead is a good example of a large venous blood flow. .... In contrast to blood from a vein, arterial blood spurts from a wound, driven by the pumping action of the heart. ... Dr. Rodante, who has made one of the most extensive studies of the forehead wounds to date, has identified the origins of many of the head wounds based on the size or coagulation pattern of blood flows on the skin. (The arterial or venous origins of blood flows matted in the hair, and not free-flowing on skin, are impossible to determine.) As examples, the epsilon-shaped forehead clot lies exactly over the frontal vein, while the arterial wound numbered AI in figure 21 precisely corresponds with the frontal branch of the superficial temple artery. [Rodante, S., "The Coronation of Thorns in the Light of the Shroud," Shroud Spectrum International, Issue 1, December 1981, pp.5-24] According to Rodante, `The perfect correspondency of the forehead dots imprinted on the [Shroud], overlaying as they do the vein and the artery in mirror image, gives us the certainty that the linen covered the corpse of a man, who, while living, suffered the lesion of these blood vessels:' [Ibid, p.8] ... These examples of distinctly venous and arterial wounds indicate that the injuries evident on the man's image could have occurred only on an actual human body. Regardless of technique, no artist, especially one working in the Middle Ages, has ever represented the distinction between venous and arterial blood so accurately. .... In fact, the difference between arterial and venous blood was not even discovered until 1593 [actually it was 1616 - SJ], more than 230 [250 - SJ] years after some allege that the Shroud image was painted. The epsilon-shaped clot on the man's forehead contains another realistic detail. As the blood flow descended, it broadened and changed course twice. Physicians believe this was because forehead muscles spontaneously contract when they are injured. The forehead, temple, and scalp contain a web of nerves that is highly sensitive to pain. [Ibid] Thus, contracting forehead muscles would be a natural reaction to the intense pain caused by having more than thirty head wounds." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.25-26).

when "William Harvey" who "attended ... Cambridge University ... from 1593", "In a 1616 lecture ... first stated his theories about the circulation of blood" and "Finally, in 1628 ... published his book, An Anatomical Exercise Concerning the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals, i.e. "more than" 250 "years after some allege that the Shroud image was painted" (my emphasis)!

And so again the real counterpart of the "Flat Earth Society" is not those who "fight for the authenticity of the shroud," but rather those like the late Prof. Edward Hall and Prof. Robert Hedges (both of the Oxford lab which was one of the three which radiocarbon dated the Shroud "between 1260 and 1390" AD in 1988) who fight against "the authenticity of the shroud," in their absurd claim that in "the 14th century ... Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"' (my emphasis)!:

"In the late 1970s, he was quick to see the value of the revolutionary new method of radiocarbon dating then being developed (called accelerator mass spectrometry or AMS dating) and became fully committed to establishing the method at Oxford. In the early days of setting up the AMS facility at Oxford, he could be found crawling inside the accelerator tank, or discussing design modifications, or even sweeping the floor. Such total involvement got its reward especially in his participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, had authorised the removal of samples of the shroud for testing by three laboratories: in Arizona, Zurich - and Oxford. Hall's laboratory dated its sample to between 1260 and 1390. The mix of good science, intricate instrumentation, the attention of the world's press, the ambivalence of the religious authorities and sheer importance of the outcome for so many people appealed to him immensely; he also took pleasure in, as he saw it, the debunking of any conviction that could not be rationally demonstrated. `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.' And again, `Some people may continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud, like the Flat Earth Society, but this settles it all as far as we are concerned." (Hedges, R., "Obituary: Professor Edward Hall," The Independent, August 16, 2001)

Continued in part #10: "The Shroud's blood and pollen closely matches the Sudarium of Oviedo's" on my other blog, The Shroud of Turin.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Leviticus 26:21-26. ²¹" 'If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. ²²I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted. ²³" 'If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, ²⁴I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. ²⁵And I will bring the sword upon you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. ²⁶When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #8: Bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ... But that "bearded face" on that particular cloth did not belong to Jesus of Nazareth. ... Continued from part #7.

[Left: Bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin, Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin]

Before we get to the evidence of the blood on the Shroud of Turin being type AB, which is more common in Jews than in Europeans in part #9, the first point is that there are in fact stains of real blood on the Shroud, i.e. as the late Professor of Chemistry Alan D. Adler, an authority on the chemistry of blood put it, "the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!" (my emphasis):

"We began our presentation. One by one, we gave our short talks with slides, graphs, spectra, and tried to make them intelligible to the nonscientist. Everything that had been done was included, from mathematical models, VP-8 and physical experiments, to pathology. ... We all wanted to be very careful that we did not overstate anything. We were extremely cautious to make no statement of any kind that could not be supported by the data. Bit by bit, the complex story involving optics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine unfolded. Most of the questions were excellent. Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone's claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper. Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence; 2. Indicative reflection spectra; 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra; 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence; 5. Positive hemochromogen tests; 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests; 7. Positive detection of bile pigments; 8. Positive demonstration of protein; 9. Positive indication of albumin; 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue; 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin; 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls; 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks. Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!'" (Heller, J.H., "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, pp.215-216. Emphasis original. Semi-colons added).

Which is itself a huge problem for the 14th century forgery theory that, as the late Professor Edward Hall (head of the Oxford laboratory which was one of the three which in 1988 radiocarbon dated the Shroud as 14th century) put it "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it," because the unknown medieval forger would have to had, amongst other things, daubed real human (or at least primate) blood on the "bit of linen" that he "faked it up and flogged"!

But it is a major article of faith of the self-proclaimed `skeptics' of the Shroud's authenticity (i.e. true believers in the Shroud's non-authenticity!) that: "There is NO blood on the Shroud" (Walter C. McCrone); "the blood-stains are not real blood" (Joe Nickell), "There is no blood on the Shroud" (Steven S. Schafersman), "there is no blood on the shroud of Turin" (Skeptic's Dictionary), so it is presumably too late for them to admit that they have been wrong on this fundamental point all these years.

Especially since "where blood occurs in the same region as body image, the cloth fibres lack body image characteristics below the bloodstain" which means that "the blood was on the cloth before the body image-making process began," and which (to put it mildly) "is hardly the way any artist might be expected to work" (my emphasis):

"As for the `blood' stains, according to Heller's and Adler's studies these derived from genuine clotted wounds, and they pass eleven different diagnostic tests, enabling them to be pronounced to be true blood in any court of law. Blood constituents such as proteins, albumen, haem products, and the bile pigment bilirubin (on which Adler is an acknowledged expert) can all be determined to be present. One remarkable feature noted by Adler is that where blood occurs in the same region as body image, the cloth fibres lack body image characteristics below the bloodstain, suggesting that the blood was on the cloth before the body image-making process began. [Adler, A.D., "Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Blood Stains," International Scientific Symposium "The Turin Shroud, past, present and future," Villa Gualino, Turin, 2-5 March 2000] That is hardly the way any artist might be expected to work." (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.75).

And it is not only blood with "hemoglobin ... a component" but also "blood serum which had become separated from whole blood before or after the man's death," with "The edges of these stains ... precisely defined" (my emphasis):

"The Bloodstains The `blood' areas on the Shroud have attracted considerable attention since the first color photographs of the cloth became available. It appeared that blood had flowed from the man's feet, wrists, and side. ... The reddish, brown stains appear to be quite anatomically correct, as on would expect if a man had bled after being stabbed in the side and nailed through his wrists and feet. The edges of these stains are also precisely defined. If the Shroud actually covered a real corpse, one wonders how the cloth was removed without smearing and dislodging the edges of the clotted blood. When they arrived in Turin in 1978, the scientists did no know whether the `bloodstains' were really blood. ... The 1978 team hoped to settle the blood question once and for all by examining the bloodstained areas with a full battery of optical tests throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. ... The most important and conclusive work was done by John Heller and Alan Adler in their laboratory at the New England Institute. [Heller, J.H. & Adler, A.D., "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, 1980, pp.2742-2744] Heller and Adler examined several `sticky tape' samples which contained pieces of `bloodstained' fibrils. They looked at the spectrum of the visible light transmitted from these samples under a microscope, a test known as microspectrophotometry. The results suggested that hemoglobin was a component of the color. To further test this possibility, Heller and Adler removed the iron from the samples and tried to isolate porphyrin, a component of blood which fluoresces red under an ultraviolet light. Indeed, the substance which the chemists isolated from the samples fluoresced red under ultraviolet light. This confirmed that the substance was porphyrin, and thus strongly indicated that the bloodstained areas really were blood. A further indication that blood was present on the Shroud came from the ultraviolet fluorescence photographs taken by Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori. Blood itself does not fluoresce. However, when Miller and Pellicori studied their ultraviolet fluorescence photographs of the blood areas, they discovered a light fluorescent margin around the edges of several of the bloodstained areas. These areas were the side wound, the nail wound in the wrist, and the blood flow at the right foot on the dorsal image. The probable explanation for this unexpected discovery is that the fluorescent margins were blood serum, the colorless fluid part of the blood. Miller and Pellicori showed in the laboratory that blood serum on linen does fluoresce moderately. Thus, it is likely that the fluorescent margins are blood serum which had become separated from whole blood before or after the man's death. Several other tests confirmed the presence of blood on the Shroud. Protein, a component of blood, was detected in the blood areas, although no protein was found elsewhere on the cloth. X-ray fluorescence examination found that iron, a component of blood, was present in the blood area. The team's summary of research concluded that the bloodstained areas were very probably stained by real blood. [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49]" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, pp.78-80. Emphasis original).

Which then raises another problem (if not refutation) for all forgery theories that maintain the Shroud was created by placing it over a statue or bas relief coated with chemicals and blood, in "how the cloth was removed without smearing and dislodging the edges of the clotted blood" (my emphasis).

This major point that the bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are real blood, not paint or any other pigment, will be continued in part #9: "Blood on the Shroud is type AB, contains DNA and is anatomically perfect." "

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Leviticus 26:14-20. ¹⁴" 'But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, ¹⁵and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, ¹⁶then I will do this to you: I will bring upon you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and drain away your life. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. ¹⁷I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you. ¹⁸" 'If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. ¹⁹I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. ²⁰Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of the land yield their fruit.

While I am inclined towards Young Earth Creation and disagree with your positions, I find them fascinating

AN

Thanks for your message, which as is my usual policy, I will respond to via my blog, CreationEvolutionDesign , minus your personal identifying information.

[Above: Crown of thorns based on head wounds on the Shroud of Turin, by Ricci, G., "The Way of the Cross in the Light of the Holy Shroud" (1978). Note that the crown of thorns "is virtually signatory" that the crucified image of a man on the Shroud of Turin is Jesus (see `tagline' quote), yet no forger would have depicted such a non-traditional cap of thorns.]

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 8:04 AM
Subject: A note of Appreciation

>Mr. Jones,
>
>I stumbled upon your blog this evening and found it to be highly interesting.

Thank you.

>While I am inclined towards Young Earth Creation and disagree with your positions, I find them fascinating to read and well written.

If you are only "inclined towards Young Earth Creation" then you are not actually a Young Earth Creationist. Just as if you were only "inclined towards" Christianity, then you would not actually be a Christian. Young Earth Creation is the position which positively claims that the age of the Earth is only of the order of tens of thousands of years.

The Old Earth Creation position in fact does not claim that the Earth is any particular age, and therefore it does not claim the Earth is young. Evidence of that is that as the scientific estimate of the age of the Earth increased from tens of millions of years in the 19th century to thousands of millions of years in the 20th century, the Old Earth Creationist position has had no problem adjusting to that. So if you do not positively claim that the Earth is young, then you may in fact be an Old Earth Creationist without realising it!

>I only dabble in science with just high school fascination trickling into my reading from time to time (I am more interested in apologetics as a study than biology or physics like I used to be). Maybe if I ever become well-versed enough in the science behind Young Earth Creation we can have an intelligent discussion, but I fear I would seem rather unintelligent compared to your mind.

After debating for over a decade (1994-2005), I `retired' in 2005 from actually discussing Old Earth Creation vs. Young Earth Creation (as well as Creation/Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) and nowadays I just post to my blog and am writing a book called "Problems of Evolution."

Although right now I am writing a paper for a Shroud of Turin journal called, "A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin." See also my current blog series, "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?"

>I'll just stick to repairing computer hardware for now. But enough of that rambling, I just wanted to mention I am thankful for thinks such as yourself that are out in the world defending your faith and boldly proclaiming it.

Thanks again for your recognition that publicly defending Christianity is far more important than arguments about whether the Earth is young or old!

>When we get to heaven, we'll either find out who is right or maybe it won't matter at that point.

According to a verse I recently read in my morning `quiet time' study of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, when we get to heaven, we "shall know fully":

1Cor 13:9-12. ⁹For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ¹¹When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. ¹²Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

But I agree that "it won't matter at that point"!

>Maybe I can ask! Meanwhile, thank you for being bold!
>
>AN

Thanks again.

[...]

PS: The `tagline' quote below is for my blog readers generally who may not realise how closely the image on the Shroud of Turin corresponds to the crucifixion of Christ as recounted by the Gospels.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

"The evidence seems, then, to indicate that the man of the Shroud was very probably a Jew crucified under the Romans. This draws us to the inevitable question, Could it have been Jesus? To what extent does the image on the Shroud correspond to the crucifixion of Christ as recounted by the Gospels? Given the premise that the Shroud is from all other points of view genuine, this presents us with virtually no difficulty. ... 1. Jesus was scourged (Mt. 27:26, Mk. 15:15, Jn. 19:1). The body is literally covered with the wounds of a severe scourging. 2. Jesus was struck a blow to the face (Mt. 27:30, Mk. 15:19, Lk. 22:63, Jn. 19:3). There appear to be a severe swelling below the right eye and other superficial face wounds. 3. Jesus was crowned with thorns (Mt. 27:29, Mk. 15:17, Jn. 19:2). Bleeding from the scalp indicates that some form of barbed `cap' has been thrust upon the head. 4. Jesus had to carry a heavy cross (Jn. 19:17). Scourge wounds in the area of the shoulders appear to be blurred, as if by the chafing of some heavy burden. 5. Jesus' cross had to be carried for him, suggesting he repeatedly fell under the burden (Mt. 27:32, Mk. 15:21, Lk. 23:26). The knees appear severely damaged as if from repeated falls. 6. Jesus was crucified by nailing in hands and feet (Jn. 20:25). ... There are clear blood flows as from nail wounds in the wrists and at the feet. 7. Jesus' legs were not broken, but a spear was thrust into his side as a check that he was dead (Jn. 19:31-37). The legs are clearly not broken, and there is an elliptical wound in the right side. Of these seven stages, it is possible that stages one, two, and four through seven could have occurred in the case of any crucifixion victim. But the third stage, the crowning with thorns, is virtually signatory. ... If the Shroud itself is genuine, the case for it being actually Jesus' shroud is very strong, as even one of those most convinced of its fraudulence, the Jesuit historian Herbert Thurston, felt obliged to admit in 1903: `As to the identity of the body whose image is seen on the Shroud, no question is possible. The five wounds, the cruel flagellation, the punctures encircling the head, can still be clearly distinguished... . If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified.' [Thurston, H., "The Holy Shroud and the Verdict of History," The Month, CI, 1903, p.19]" (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.37-38. Brackets added)

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #7: Dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud matches Jerusalem's tombs

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ...But that "bearded face" on that particular cloth did not belong to Jesus of Nazareth. ... Continued from part #6.

[Left: The feet images on the Shroud. The top left is the heel of the right foot, which registered the strongest dirt signal (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.92-93)]

As historian Ian Wilson explains, the "1978 STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project] examination discovered, "the Shroud is significantly dirtier at the soles of the feet than anywhere else on the cloth" and "analysis of particles of limestone ... adhering to the Shroud" shows that it "that spectrally has a `signature' strikingly similar to limestone samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs" which is more "evidence that rather than being a `cunning painting' ... the Shroud really was used somewhere in the environs of Jerusalem to wrap the dirty and bloody corpse of a man who had just been crucified" (my emphasis):

"Perhaps the most tantalizing glimpse of all, however, came from reflectance spectroscopy work carried out by the husband-and-wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert in the course of the 1978 STURP examination. As they ran their equipment up and down the man of the Shroud's image the spectra they obtained proved relatively regular except when they reached the sole of the foot imprint on the back-of-the-body half of the cloth. Suddenly the spectra changed dramatically. Something in the foot area, and particularly around the heel, was giving a markedly stronger signal than elsewhere, but what? When optical physicist Sam Pellicori was summoned to view the area under the portable microscope the answer proved as chilling as it was obvious. Dead-pan, Pellicori pronounced, `It's dirt!' As might have been expected in an individual who had had even his sandals taken away from him, the man of the Shroud had dirty feet. During the March 2000 Turin sacristy viewing I and others, even with the unaided eye, could see the Shroud is significantly dirtier at the soles of the feet than anywhere else on the cloth, this dirt very visible underlying the serum-haloed bloodstains that otherwise coat the same soles. So had the Gilberts stumbled upon the very dirt from the streets of Jerusalem that had blackened the feet of Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago? In fact analysis of particles of limestone also found adhering to the Shroud have been identified by optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck as travertine aragonite that spectrally has a `signature' strikingly similar to limestone samples from ancient Jerusalem tombs, taken by archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski. [Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., "New Evidence May Explain Image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 1986, pp.18-29] From such a variety of different directions, there is therefore the most striking evidence that rather than being a `cunning painting', some time in its history the Shroud really was used somewhere in the environs of Jerusalem to wrap the dirty and bloody corpse of a man who had just been crucified." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92)

In particular, not only did "a sample of calcium taken from the Shroud in the very same foot area" turn "out to be of the rarer aragonite variety, exactly as in the case of the samples taken from the Jerusalem tombs" but both "also exhibited small amounts of strontium and iron, again suggesting a close match" indeed "an unusually close match, the only disparity being a slight organic variation readily explicable as due to minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium" (my emphasis):

"And there is one further supportive finding which has come to light, which still concerns the pollen, but which also takes us into yet another variety of extraneous material on the Shroud's surface: mineral deposits. The now familiar Turin microanalyst Giovanni Riggi, during his analysis of the materials that he had vacuumed from the Shroud's underside, reported coming across pollens ... among which he noticed an approximately fifty per cent proportion that ... bore a thick, calcium-rich mineral covering, coating all their otherwise distinctive features. ... Since ... Riggi had vacuumed his pollens from its underside, i.e. the side which had theoretically lain in contact with the tomb, then the strong implication had to be that the Shroud's underside had been affected by once having lain on some calcium-coated surface in a way that the body- image side had not, raising the question, could this mineral coating have been from the rock of a tomb in Jerusalem? In this regard it so happens that back in 1982 STURP's Ray Rogers took some of the Shroud sticky-tape samples to his old friend optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck, Resident Scientist at Hercules Aerospace in Utah. ... Kohlbeck began to take a lively interest in some of the particles of calcium carbonate (or limestone) that he immediately spotted among all the other debris on the tapes. ... these raised in his mind the interesting question of whether the chemical `signature' of these might in any way match that of the stone of the tomb in which Jesus was laid in Jerusalem. As ... the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the central shrine of which has a surprisingly good claim to being where Jesus was once buried. ... is at present so well protected against any further hacking about, that Kohlbeck rightly adjudged the chances of obtaining any samples very slim. But he reasoned that limestone rock inside other tombs in the Jerusalem vicinity ought to have roughly the same characteristics. He found a most useful and knowledgeable local research colleague in the person of archaeologist Dr Eugenia Nitowski who, for her doctorate, had made a specialist study of ancient Jewish tombs in Israel. She had excavated the first rolling-stone-type tomb east of the Jordan and, as a result of the contacts she had made, was able to obtain for Kohlbeck the Jerusalem tomb limestone samples that he needed. He subjected them to microscopic analysis, quickly finding them to have precisely the sort of distinctive characteristics that he had hoped for. As he has explained: `This particular limestone was primarily travertine aragonite deposited from springs, rather than the more common calcite. ... Aragonite is formed under a much narrower range of conditions than calcite. In addition to the aragonite, our Jerusalem samples also contained small quantities of iron and strontium, but no lead.' [Kohlbeck & Nitowski, Ibid., p.23] With Nitowski now highly intrigued at what he might find next, Kohlbeck proceeded to examine a sample of calcium taken from the Shroud in the very same foot area in which Roger and Mary Gilbert had come across the now famous `dirt'. This was chosen because it showed a larger and therefore potentially more significant concentration of calcium carbonate than other areas. To Kohlbeck's considerable satisfaction, the sample turned out to be of the rarer aragonite variety, exactly as in the case of the samples taken from the Jerusalem tombs. Not only this, but it also exhibited small amounts of strontium and iron, again suggesting a close match. But even these parallels were not enough to `prove' the needed signature, as a result of which Kohlbeck took both the Shroud samples and the Jerusalem tomb samples to Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti of the famous Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago. Here, Levi- Setti put both sets of samples through his high-resolution scanning ion microprobe, and as he and Kohlbeck studied the pattern of spectra produced by each ... it became quite obvious that they were indeed an unusually close match, the only disparity being a slight organic variation readily explicable as due to minute pieces of flax that could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium. As Kohlbeck readily acknowledged, this cannot of course be taken as proof that the Shroud aragonite can only have come from a Jerusalem limestone tomb. It may well be possible to find another area of the world in which the aragonite might prove similar to that on the Shroud and only future research more refined than anything so far conducted might one day be able to make a match that could be considered absolutely conclusive." (Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.104-106).

In the Biblical Archaeology Review article "Kohlbeck observed that those who believe that the Shroud is a forgery need to explain how the very rare aragonite found its way to the surface of the Shroud" (my emphasis):

"Scientists found other interesting features connected with the Shroud. Joseph Kohlbeck, an optical crystallographer ... found particles of aragonite with small amounts of strontium and iron on the Shroud's fibers on the image of the foot. With the help of archaeologist Eugenia Nitowski, he obtained samples of limestone from inside ancient tombs in and near Jerusalem and subjected them also to microscopic analysis. He found the same substance. The aragonite on the Shroud and in the tombs was an uncommon variety, deposited from springs, typically found in limestone caves in Palestine, but not in Europe. The samples from the Shroud and the tombs provided `an usually close match,' suggesting to him and to Nitowski that the Shroud had once been in one of the `rolling-stone tombs' that were common in Palestine around the time of Christ and for several centuries before. Kohlbeck observed that those who believe that the Shroud is a forgery need to explain how the very rare aragonite found its way to the surface of the Shroud. [Kohlbeck & Nitowski, Ibid., pp.23-24] (Ruffin, C.B., "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, 1999, p.103).

The bottom line is that, like the pollen, "no forger" back in the 14th century "would ever think of including such details which would" not have been known "until this present age with its microscopic possibilities" as limestone on the Shroud image's feet being "a rare form of calcite also found near the Damascus Gate (i.e. the one closest to Golgotha) in Jerusalem" (my emphasis):

"I wrote to the Rev A Dreisbach of the AICCSST (Atlanta International Centre for Continuing Study and Exhibit of the Shroud of Turin) to see if he knew anything about the carbon dating of the sudarium in Arizona. Unfortunately, his answer was negative ... However, he did make some other very interesting points. In relation to the dust particles on the nasal area of the Shroud, he mentions an analysis carried out on particles from the foot area. He says:

microscopic dirt particles taken from the foot area during the 1978 examination were eventually analysed by Joseph Kohlbek at the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah and found to be travertine aragonite - a rare form of calcite also found near the Damascus Gate (i.e. the one closest to Golgotha) in Jerusalem. That finding was later confirmed by Dr Levi Setti using an electron probe microscope at the Enrico Fermi Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.

This interesting information is further proof that the Shroud is that of Jesus, because no forger, either pious or impious, nobody who made a portrait of Christ, for whatever reason, would ever think of including such details, which would have been ignored anyway until this present age with its microscopic possibilities." (Guscin, M., "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.78-79. Emphasis original)

where Jesus would have passed on the way to His crucifixion!

Continued in part #8: "Bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Leviticus 26:3-10. ³" 'If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, ⁴I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. ⁵Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land. ⁶" 'I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. ⁷You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. ⁸Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you. ⁹" 'I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers, and I will keep my covenant with you. ¹⁰You will still be eating last year's harvest when you will have to move it out to make room for the new.

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #6: Plants on the Shroud native to in and around Israel

This my CreationEvolutionDesign blog is inactive. My only active blog is "The Shroud of Turin." See my posts of 01Dec07, 22Nov08, 06Apr13, 22Aug14 and 08Oct16 on that blog regarding this topic.

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ...But that "bearded face" on that particular cloth did not belong to Jesus of Nazareth. ... Continued from part #5.

[Above: Chrysanthemum coronarium image on the Shroud of Turin, Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin]

Note that even one flower image on the Shroud (let alone between "twenty-eight" and "twenty-two" different species - see below) just adds to the problems of naturalistic explanations of the Shroud's image. How would a dead body generate light or other radiation to project not only his own image but that of flowers lying on his body onto the linen shroud covering his dead body? And why would, and how could a 14th century forger, in the words of the late Oxford physics Professor E.T. Hall, have "just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it" to create a relic of Jesus, include photographic negative imprints (considering that photographic negatives did not exist until 1820, ~500 years later), not only of Jesus' body , but of flowers on Jesus' body, considering that the gospel accounts do not specifically mention flowers (although they are not inconsistent with there being flowers in the "spices" (Gk. aroomatoon) of John 19:40).

The presence of images of flowers on the Shroud of Turin was first mentioned in 1983 by a German physicist named Oswald Scheuermann in 1983 in a letter to Alan Whanger, then a Professor at Duke University Medical Center. However, it was not until two years later that Whanger, who had copies of high quality life-sized photographs of the Shroud taken by Giuseppe Enrie in 1931, himself noticed some flower images on the photographs. Whanger then began an intensive four-year search for more flower images on the Shroud, using Flora Palaestina.

Whanger claimed to have found on the Shroud, "twenty-eight" different species of "plants whose images are sufficiently clear and complete to make a good comparison with the drawings in Flora Palaestina" and of those, "Twenty grow in Jerusalem itself, and the other eight grow potentially within the close vicinity of Jerusalem" and "Twenty-seven of these twenty-eight bloom in March and April, which corresponds to the time of Passover and the Crucifixion" (my emphasis):

"While there are images of hundreds of flowers on the Shroud, many are vague or incomplete. We feel Alan has identified, tentatively but with reasonable certainty, twenty-eight plants whose images are sufficiently clear and complete to make a good comparison with the drawings in Flora Palaestina. Of these twenty-eight plants, twenty-three are flowers, three are small bushes, and two are thorns. All twenty-eight grow in Israel. Twenty grow in Jerusalem itself, and the other eight grow potentially within the close vicinity of Jerusalem, either in the Judean Desert or in the Dead Sea area or in both. All twenty-eight would have been available in Jerusalem markets in a fresh state. Many would have been growing along the roadside or in nearby fields, available for the picking. A rather unique situation exists in that within Jerusalem and the surrounding twelve miles, four geographic areas exist with their differing specific climates and flora. Nowhere else are so many different types of species found so close together. Of these twenty-eight plants, Frei, working from the sticky tape slides, had previously identified the pollens of twenty-five of the same or similar plants. Twenty-seven of these twenty-eight bloom in March and April, which corresponds to the time of Passover and the Crucifixion. There are at least seven small bouquets in addition to the various bunched flowers." (Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, 1998, p.78).

Moreover, of the "twenty-eight plants ... Half are found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe" and it "is hardly likely" that "the pollens were blown across the Mediterranean and deposited on the Shroud while it was on display in France or Italy":

"Some species of plants have wide geographic distribution. Using botanical references, Alan determined the ranges of the twenty-eight plants, noting whether they are found in central Europe, including France (botanical Zone I) or in the Mediterranean, including Italy (botanical Zone IV). Only three are found in central Europe. Nine are definitely found in Italy. Five more are found mostly in the eastern Mediterranean, which includes Israel, but might extend into Italy. Half are found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe. Some skeptics have suggested that maybe the pollens were blown across the Mediterranean and deposited on the Shroud while it was on display in France or Italy. That is hardly likely, as many of these pollens are heavy pollens with prickly surfaces designed to be carried by insects, not by wind." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.78-79).

Therefore, this pollen from the ~14 species of plants which are "found only in the Middle East or other similar areas and never in Europe" is proof that the Shroud must have been at one time in exposed to the air of "Israel" and specifically "within the close vicinity of Jerusalem" and blooming "in March and April" which was "the time of Passover and the Crucifixion"!

Further confirmation that the flower images are real is that in at least one case, the pollen of a plant, Cistus creticus (which according to the list, on pages 40-41 of Ian Wilson's "Evidence of the Shroud" of the 58 pollen species on the Shroud identified by Max Frei, is found growing wild in the "Mediterranean area" and "Jerusalem & environs" but not in "France, Italy") coincided with the discovery of an image of "the center of the same Cistus creticus flower" on the Shroud:

"Carefully examining one of the Frei slides, researcher Paul Maloney discovered a cluster of many pollens from the same plant. These pollens were identified by palynologist Dr. A. Orville Dahl as Cistus creticus. (Palynologists study live and fossil pollens, spores, and similar plant structures.) Years earlier, Frei had identified pollens from this same plant on his sticky tape slides. At the time he took the sticky tape samples, he was unaware of the images of flowers on the Shroud, but it so happened that the tape Maloney was observing had been taken over the center of the same Cistus creticus flower that Alan had already identified. Thus Frei, Maloney with Dahl, and Alan, all working separately and at different times and using different methods, found the presence of Cistus creticus on the Shroud. Since Alan used Frei's pollen identification list to search for flowers bearing those pollens, most of the flowers that we identified do have pollens that were present on the Shroud." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.78).

In 1995 Whanger received confirmation from "Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany at The Hebrew University" and author of the "Flora of Israel" online database, that some of the images on the Shroud are in fact "the flowers of Jerusalem" (my emphasis)!:

"In 1995, we went on a study tour in Israel with the Spanish Shroud research group Centro Espanol de Sindonologia. Before leaving for Israel, Alan called Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the world authority on the plants of Israel, to ask if we might be able to see him. We had known about him for a number of years. He very kindly invited us to his home, where we showed him a number of our photographs of the flower images. After about twenty seconds of looking at them, he exclaimed, `Those are the flowers of Jerusalem!' Imagine how pleased and excited we were to hear him say that! That's what we thought, but we are not trained in botany, and it was wonderful to hear an affirmation from such a highly respected professional botanist. Danin said that we needed plant specimens and pollens from species related to those tentatively identified in order to do comparison studies, and he began this collection in 1996." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.79-80).

Two years later in 1997, Prof. "Danin made a careful and detailed examination of" Whanger's "photographs and of the images on the Shroud" and "stated that he agrees with confidence with twenty-two of the twenty-eight plant identifications that we had made" and a further "three are probably correct and the other three are possibly correct" and in fact "One of the plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, grows only in Israel, Jordan, and Sinai" (my emphasis):

"In 1997 during a visit to our home, Danin made a careful and detailed examination of our photographs and of the images on the Shroud. He stated that he agrees with confidence with twenty-two of the twenty-eight plant identifications that we had made. Of the remaining six identifications, he said that three are probably correct and the other three are possibly correct, but he could not identify them with certainty because the images are too fragmentary. In no case did he totally disagree with our original tentative identification or fail to see some imaging. Moreover, he discovered a large number of additional flower images that we had not found. Having previously plotted the locations of multiple thousands of plant species in Israel, Danin was able to state that twenty-seven of the twenty-eight plants whose images are on the Shroud grow within five areas measuring five by five kilometers (three by three miles) immediately around Jerusalem and between Jerusalem and Jericho. The twenty-eighth plant is found at the south end of the Dead Sea. One of the plants, Zygophyllum dumosum, grows only in Israel, Jordan, and Sinai, with its northernmost boundary in the world being at the sea level sign on the highway between Jerusalem and Jericho. The image of this plant on the Shroud, according to Danin, shows both a winter leaf and the remnants of the stalk from the preceding year, proof that the plant was plucked in the spring. For Danin as a botanist, the presence of the image of this one plant is sufficient to establish Jerusalem as the place of origin of the Shroud of Turin." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.80).

Also, the images are of "wilted flowers" which "would be between twenty-four and thirty-six hours old after picking" (there were ~36 hours between Jesus' burial at sundown on Friday night and His resurrection at sunrise on Sunday morning-Luke 23:50-24:3):

"The length of time between the picking of the flowers and the forming of the images can be reasonably determined by the degree of wilting and the corona discharge appearance of the images. The more fragile flowers show rather marked wilting within the first twenty-four hours. The more durable ones undergo considerable shrinking within a few days after picking. Both the general gross appearance of the wilted flowers and the appearance of the corona discharge images strongly suggest that most of the flowers whose images are on the Shroud would be between twenty-four and thirty-six hours old after picking. This finding corresponds well with the accepted physiologic and anatomic data from the Shroud which is that the images of the body were made between twenty-four and forty hours after death. Twenty-four hours is the time required for the observed blood clot separation. Forty hours is the time decomposition, which is not seen, would have begun to be grossly apparent." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.80-81).

Moreover, on the "right shoulder image there is the image of one end of a structure" of "at least six stems with thorn and flower clusters of a very thorny plant called Gundelia tournefortii" which "has a very limited geographic distribution, but is found in Jerusalem and the Dead Sea area" and may be part of "the crown of thorns" that "History records only one person ... wore ... -Jesus of Nazareth" (my emphasis):

"There are images of plants and flowers on the Shroud that were placed with the body for quite another reason, and which bear witness to the identity of the Man of the Shroud. These are the plants that were used in the mocking prior to the Crucifixion, the ones that make up the crown of thorns. They would have been bloody and in touch with the body at the time of death. On the anatomic right shoulder image there is the image of one end of a structure that goes up, around, down, and back again. Making up this structure are at least six stems with thorn and flower clusters of a very thorny plant called Gundelia tournefortii. This plant has a very limited geographic distribution, but is found in Jerusalem and the Dead Sea area. There is also a round flower and thorn cluster of another thorn species in the center of the structure, and there may be the image of yet a third kind of thorn. Alan duplicated the drawings of the thorns in Flora Palaestina, taped them together to form the structure whose images we see on the Shroud, then glued the resulting structure to a sheet of clear rigid plastic. We then placed this model of the crown of thorns on a lifesize photograph of the Shroud which shows the front, top, and back of the head to see how well the size of the crown and the position of the thorns would match the blood stains on the Shroud. The match is quite good. History records only one person who wore a crown of thorns-Jesus of Nazareth." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.84-85).

Indeed, the area where "Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus" occur together is "the very narrow geographical region that ... is the mere twenty miles between Hebron and Jerusalem(my emphasis):

"For, whatever anyone else may make of Danin's botanical `eye', what cannot be emphasized enough is that the location-type evidence, even from the pollens alone, is quite overwhelming. As Uri Baruch found, there are some instances in which he cannot be as specific about plant species as Frei was, but instead refers to a plant type. Possibly Frei may have been a little over-enthusiastic in his identification in these cases, or (since his death robbed us of ever knowing his full insights), it may have been because he found a way to manipulate the specimen in order to see it better. Either way, such differences are essentially minor, and the sceptics' slurs on Frei's memory are proved to be unfounded. As Danin sums up, particularly from superimposing the known distribution sites of Gundelia tournefortii, Zygophyllum dumosum and Cistus creticus, together with three further specific pollen types confirmed to be on the Shroud, [Lomelosia prolifera, Cistus incanus-type and Cistus salvifolius-type] the very narrow geographical region that all these plants share in common is the mere twenty miles between Hebron and Jerusalem. [Danin, A., "Micro-traces of plants on the Shroud of Turin as geographical markers," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, 2000, pp.495-500] So the conclusion is inescapable, in the very teeth of the radiocarbon dating, that at some time in its history the Turin Shroud positively must have been in the same environs in which Jesus of Nazareth lived and died." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.92).

There is also evidence on 10th-3rd century coins and art that the Shroud existed then and that "Flower images (and other images)" on it were "more apparent early on" (which I will expand on in a later post: "8. Pre-14th century art based on the Shroud"):

"Flower images (and other images) on the Shroud are so very faint now. Were they likely more apparent early on? We feel the answer is definitely yes. The images on the Shroud have the appearance of a light scorch. The Shroud is linen, and linen yellows as it ages, but it does not continue to darken indefinitely. The yellowing darkens only so far and no further. Therefore as the Shroud ages, the background darkens but the images do not, and as the background darkens it becomes more nearly the same color as the images, in effect swallowing them up. It is not clear when the images of the flowers became so indistinct as to be essentially unperceived or ignored by onlookers. ... In any event, flowers congruent with those whose images are on the Shroud were portrayed in numerous works of art from the third through the tenth centuries having high PC [points of congruence] with the Shroud face image. Alan made a drawing of the flower images within the circular opening of the cloth covering of the Mandylion to use as reference. The congruence of the flowers is based more on their being in the right places than on close resemblance to the varieties identified on the Shroud. In many of the depictions, the flowers are stylized, and on the coins they are too small to have the shapes of different varieties. One of the earliest portraits of Christ from the third century in the Roman catacombs shows small flowers around the head patterned very much like the flower-banked face image in the Mandylion/Shroud. The same is true of a catacomb portrait of Christ from the fourth century which shows a number of flowers in the nimbus or halo. In the halo of the Pantocrator icon of 550 at Saint Catherine's Monastery there are many dozens of images of flowers which are highly congruent in placement with those on the Shroud. Even more striking is the very accurate placement of the flower images on the 692-695 gold solidus coins of Justinian II. ... Flowers were accurately portrayed on the gold coins of Constantine VII in 945 after the Mandylion had been brought in great ceremony to the Chapel of the Emperor in Constantinople. And there are many other portraits of Jesus which contain highly accurately placed depictions of flowers." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.81-82).

Even Ian Wilson, who was originally sceptical of Whanger's flower image claims, and even after viewing Whanger's photos first-hand, "saw little grounds for changing this opinion," yet when he, with Danin, saw the Shroud again at its March 2000 exhibition, it was "quite apparent" that the "flower images are not just an aberration of black-and-white photographs" and that "Faint flower-like shapes are quite definitely there on the cloth itself" and cannot "be dismissed as merely of the `faces in clouds' variety":

"In unison, both Whanger and Danin identify on Whanger's life-size black-and-white Shroud photos a Gundelia inflorescence on the man of the Shroud's right shoulder. The STURP ultraviolet photos had first shown up a striated feature in this area that was initially supposed to be a furrowing of the shoulder from the thongs of the scourge," and on the evidence of photographs alone I saw little grounds for changing this opinion. But at the March 2000 viewing of the Shroud I was very close to Danin as we were ushered into the Cathedral sacristy. Indeed, he had brought binoculars, and kindly lent me these while we both waited for those who were standing in front of us to give way Then, as we were able to get within touching distance of the Shroud, the spontaneity of his reaction was quite infectious. As his eyes focused on the shoulder area, in almost childlike delight he recognized, as only one of his so specialized botanical expertise could, the Gundelia inflorescence's presence on this. ... Quite obvious was that for Danin, the world's leading expert on the flora of Israel, here, on this piece of cloth displayed in a northern Italian Cathedral side-room, was utterly unqualified recognition of a plant that he positively knew to come from the environs of his own Jerusalem. And in my observing this recognition, I could only bow to his very special `eye' for such things - as he subsequently explained to me, a `gift' from his childhood. The natural daylight lighting Turin Cathedral's sacristy was clear and even, and as, during the two hours allotted to us, my eyes continued to rove the Shroud's surface, quite apparent was that flower images are not just an aberration of black-and-white photographs. Faint flower-like shapes are quite definitely there on the cloth itself, and while no doubt many can deservedly be dismissed as merely of the `faces in clouds' variety, the `hard' evidence of the pollens, combined with my first-hand observation of Danin's very special eye at work, now persuades me to believe that some at least are `real'." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.91-92. Emphasis original)

Danin presented this botanical evidence which indicates that the Shroud of Turin originated in the Jerusalem area before the 8th century to the 1999 XVI International Botanical Congress (which later was published in a "peer-reviewed publication," "Flora of the Shroud of Turin") which "disputes the validity of the claim that the Shroud was from Europe during the Middle Ages ... based on carbon-14 dating tests" and is positive evidence that "these species on the Shroud ... were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth" after having been picked "in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem ," "between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud" (my emphasis):

"An analysis of pollen grains and plant images places the origin of the `Shroud of Turin,' thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem before the 8th Century. The authenticity of the Shroud has been debated for centuries, with a 1988 carbon dating process placing it in the Middle Ages. Botanist Avinoam Danin of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem determined the origin of the Shroud based on a comprehensive analysis of pollen taken from the Shroud and plant images associated with the Shroud. The review of plant and pollen evidence is being published by the Missouri Botanical Garden Press as Flora of the Shroud of Turin by Danin, Alan Whanger, Mary Whanger , and Uri Baruch. The peer-reviewed publication will be available in late summer. Danin presented his research findings at a lecture series held in conjunction with the XVI International Botanical Congress. More than 4,000 scientists from 100 countries are meeting in St. Louis this week to discuss the latest research on plants for human survival and improved quality of life. ... Danin's analysis suggests that flowers and other plant materials were placed on the Shroud of Turin, leaving pollen grains and imprints of plants and flowers on the linen cloth. In addition to the image of a crucified man, the cloth also contains faint images of plants. Tentatively identifying the plant images through a method of image comparison known as Polarized Image Overlay Technique (PIOT), Alan and Mary Whanger have reported that the flowers were from the Near East region and that the Shroud originated in early centuries. Analysis of the floral images by Danin and an analysis of the pollen grains by Uri Baruch identify a combination of certain species that could be found only in the months of March and April in the region of Jerusalem during that time. The analysis positively identifies a high density of pollen of the thistle Gundelia tournefortii which has bloomed in Israel between March and May for millennia. An image of the plant can be seen near the image of the man's shoulder. It has been hypothesized by the Whangers, who have researched the Shroud for decades, that this is the plant used for the `crown of thorns' on Jesus' head. ... Danin stated that this botanical research disputes the validity of the claim that the Shroud was from Europe during the Middle Ages, as many researchers had concluded in 1988 based on carbon-14 dating tests. .... Another plant seen in a clear image on the Shroud is of the Zygophyllum dumosum species, according to the paper. This is a native plant with an unusual leaf morphology, displaying paired leaflets on the ends of leaf petiole of the current year during the beginning of winter. Gundelia tournefortii and Zygophyllum dumosum coexist in a limited area, according to Danin, a leading authority on plants of Israel. The area is bounded by lines linking Jerusalem and Hebron in Israel and Madaba and Karak in Jordan. The area is anchored toward the Jerusalem-Hebron zone with the addition of a third species, Cistus creticus, identified as being placed on the Shroud through an analysis of pollen and floral imaging. `This combination of flowers can be found in only one region of the world,' Danin stated. `The evidence clearly points to a floral grouping from the area surrounding Jerusalem.' Danin stated that the evidence revealing these species on the Shroud suggests that they were placed with the body prior to the process that caused the formation of images on the cloth. ... Images of Capparis aegyptia flowers, which display a distinctive pattern during daylight hours, have also been seen on the Shroud. The process of buds opening ceases when the flowers are picked and no water is supplied. The images of these flowers on the Shroud suggest they were picked in the Judean Desert or the Dead Sea Valley between 3 and 4 p.m. on the day they were placed on the Shroud. The images of the flowers on the Shroud are also depicted in art of the early centuries, according to the upcoming publication. Early icons on some 7th century coins portray a number of flower images that accurately match floral images seen on the Shroud today, according to PIOT analysis by the Whangers. The researchers suggest that the faint images on the Shroud were probably clearer in earlier centuries. .... In 1983 faint floral images on the Shroud linen were noted by O. Scheuermann, and subsequently in 1985 by the Whangers. Botanist Avinoam Danin began collaborating with Shroud researchers Alan and Mary Whanger in 1995. They were joined by Israeli pollen expert Uri Baruch in 1998. ... While there have long been historical, literary, and artistic claims that the Shroud represents the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, there has been little scientific evidence to support this ..." (XVI International Botanical Congress, "Botanical Evidence Indicates `Shroud Of Turin' Originated In Jerusalem Area Before 8th Century, " Science Daily, August 3, 1999).

and Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem on the afternoon of April 7, 30 AD!

To be continued in part #7: "Dirt on the feet of the man on the Shroud closely matches that of Jerusalem tombs."

Posted: 5 June 2007. Updated: 17 October 2016.